Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

liqs8143 writes "Of the 20 million minors who actively used Facebook in the past year, 7.5 million of them were younger than 13, according to projections from Consumer Reports' latest State of the Net survey. Facebook's terms of service require users to be at least 13 years old. Also among this group of minors using Facebook, more than 5 million were 10 and under. Consumer Reports' survey found that their accounts were largely unsupervised by their parents, exposing them to malware or serious threats such as predators or bullies."

I was already 18 by the time I first got on the internet. I only had to lie about my age to get on a BBS.;-)

The age checks are a minor annoyance to those over the required age, and ineffective for those that aren't. I have an account on Steam, and despite the fact that I'm logged in and they have my information already and I have confirmed that I'm over 18 dozens of times, I still get prompts to verify my age to look at mature rated games in Steam's store.

yeah - I usually leave the year and month at 1 and set the year to something random - 1920 or so. I don't believe Steam tracks player age, but they could (you need to be 13 there as well, because they collect personal information).

So a full third of Facebook's viewers are 13 or under. That is actually kind of a shocking statistic. I am sure glad I am not one of those new investors they recently took on. This is going to by a buy high sell low event for most of them is my guess. Facebook is following the pattern of MySpace and is about out of steam is my guess.

The problem here isn't Facebook, it's bad parenting. We let our 8 and 9 year old use Facebook. The computer is in the living room where we can see what they're doing, we vet all their friends and generally keep an eye on things. They're not stupid, if they don't know someone who requests their friendship, they block them straight away without us having to intervene. They thoroughly enjoy playing a lot of the games on there and why shouldn't they?

Facebook isn't inherently evil and something that we should keep kids away from. They've got just as much chance getting nonced up on one of the kiddy branded sites like Mushi Monsters or Panfu. Funnily enough, they haven't been.

Malware is a problem, as are sexual predators. Bullies on the other hand, can be found on any playground. Online bullies have words as their weapons, whereas the offline version use their fists. To pretend that the online variety are a special threat is ridiculous. If junior can't handle someone saying mean things about him online then he'll always be a momma's boy.

That being said, I think it is a good thing that younger people are choosing to immerse themselves in Facebook and other forms of social med

Clearly you've never seen online bullies who go into extraordinary lengths to crack (maybe brute force) someone's passwords in order take over their accounts or to steal their identities to harm their reputations, or spam their web spaces with insults so that it scares away all of the victims' visitors and associates.

I'm not sure malware is a unique problem for this age group. If anything, a typical kid probably is more savvy than a typical parent of that kid, so greater parental supervision isn't necessaril.

Bullshit, all the malware problems I have ever had have come from giving children access to the internet. It is a myth that kids are somehow magically more tech savvy than their parents just because, er, they're young and they have computers at school unlike when I was young.

Kids really, really really don't give a shit about breaking stuff (their own or other people's). Everyone seem to forget this as they grow up, until they get their own kids and the cycle starts again.

Your comment is so out of touch with reality that it has me wondering if I'm feeding a troll here. Clearly you've never seen online bullying in progress at its worst. And as far as bullies on the playground go: if you think the main problem of getting bullied is the risk of physical harm, you're clearly in the dark about what bullying really is about.

The Wikipedia lemma [wikipedia.org] has it right where it says "Bullying is abusive treatment [...] involving an imbalance in power. [...] The "imbalance of power" may be soci

I agree with the fact that they are not equal... but not for the reasons you say they are not equal. For every playground bully, there are maybe 100 online bullies. If you have EVER spent time on a online forum, you would know this. Oh, I know that slashdot is SIMILAR to a forum in how it is set up, but there are far fewer bullies and trolls here than compared to a place like Yahoo Answers, or any gaming forum. Yes, I'm sure you could respond with some clever remark about how I must not be aware of the bullies and trolls here... but that would just be ignorant on your part.

You say "if junior can't handle someone saying mean things about him online then he'll always be a momma's boy." so... you imply that people shouldn't allow words to hurt them, and in the same sentence you choose to use an offensive phrase to insult and offend people. That's no different than saying if a bully isn't stood up to, then the kid he is bullying deserved the beat-down. I mean, if the kid can't defend himself, he should learn how to fight... right? You do realize that it is far easier to physically lash out at an issue, then mentally process it properly... right? Not to pick on people with disabilities, or really small children, but we can use their experiences as an example. Looking at very small children... before they learn to speak properly, they learn to hit. Something scares them, angers them... they don't process it, they lash out. Look at retarded individuals or autistic individuals. Violence is often a reaction that must be dealt because that is a FAR easier way to deal with what they are feeling. So, it is harder for Junior to deal with someone saying mean things than it is for Junior to deal with someone hitting him. Junior would much rather have a black eye than have the stigma of being a "momma's boy" follow him throughout his school career. Again, if you don't realize that, you are lacking the knowledge of how things are... and by definition that is ignorant.

You aren't upset when I point out how ignorant you are about these things, are you? It doesn't bother you... does it?

Now, add to that the fact that there is a separation of the individual from the incident, that occurs when there is a case of cyber-bullying... and it is FAR easier for an every day common Joe who would NEVER be a bully in real life to become a bully online. In fact, there are quite a number of people who would actually be VICTIMS of real life bullying that take up cyber-bullying as a way to overcompensate. When people can't see your face, and you can't see theirs... it makes it FAR easier to say things that would sting and stick with someone. When you can post something for the WORLD to read, and then pass that around to all of someone's friends.. that has a lasting impact. Are you that ignorant of how actions on the internet are costing some people their jobs? Do you really think that what happens here on the internet (and gets cached by Google) doesn't have an impact?

"To pretend that the online variety are a special threat is ridiculous." WAKE UP! How many kids have committed suicide because of a playground bully? Now, how many kids have committed suicide because of an ONLINE bully? When you were in Jr. High school... if someone started passing around photographs of you having homosexual relations... or relations with a person 50 years your Sr... how would that have made you feel? What if there was NOTHING you could do from EVERYONE at the school seeing those photos? It doesn't matter if those photos were faked. Ok. Don't like photos? What if all of a sudden a notebook appeared, and it looked just like yours, and inside there were all these horrible things written about your friends, and your teachers... and that notebook got passed around and shown to everyone? What if it LOOKED like it was from you... I mean, it LOOKED like it was your handwriting, even to you? This is no different than a cyber bully setting up a fake facebook page (as has already been done) and making it look like

If you are reasonably sure that you won't get caught, it's IMO absolutely OK to ignore stupid rules. If you obey rules because they are 'the rules' (and not because, for example, they make sense to you), that's your problem.

Doing or not doing something solely on the basis of whether you'll get caught simply makes you a sociopath

Rosa Parks defied the rules that were keeping persons of her color from using PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.

Facebook is not public transportation. Not literally, and not for the sake of the comparison you are making.

If you are reasonably sure you won't get caught, and you ignore the rules... then you are NOT attempting to change the rules for the better and you have no interest in improving the situation for anyone other than yourself. You are simply attempting to circumvent the rules and get away with some

I'm saying that she took that seat because she was tired of giving in, and she wanted the attention. IE, she intended to get caught. I'm saying that using Rosa Parks to reinforce the argument "If you are reasonably sure that you won't get caught, it's IMO absolutely OK to ignore stupid rules" is incorrect, because she WAS looking to get caught, so she could speak out.

Who's talking about school? You think these kids 7.5 million kids are only on Facebook at home? They are on Facebook on their phones. They are on Yahoo Answers looking for Proxy Servers so they can get on Facebook at school. So, assuming that they are NOT on Facebook at school really is just burying your head in the sand.

My post was a series of points about how words DO have impact... and you are proving that by getting upset. My post was written to have an effect... and it did.

Yes, bullies are easy to dismiss aren't they? Certainly children have never been driven to self-harm because of systematic emotional abuse. Well, except for a few momma's boys and girls of course, but who cares about them?

... no matter how much they pester you for it. Because a 13-year old typically doesn't know that visitor information is not exposed in the facebook API. (Neither does the typical adult, unfortunately) So, when an app promises to give it to her, she may believe it when she is told [random dude chosen by the app] visits her profile ten times every day. That is bad for an adult, whose friends suddenly thinks he's an obsessive, creepy stalker - but if the app-clicker is underage, those people may think you're a pedophile as well.

It happened to a journalist whose blog I read, I've experienced similar things myself (though not quite that bad).

If you have an obviously legitimate reason to "friend" the kid and it's obvious to anyone reading the kid's page OR your page that there is a legitimate connection, then I don't see the problem.

Obvious reasons:* You are a relative.* Your kid is also a friend of the kid AND nobody will wonder why your kid and this kid are friends.* You are using an "official" account like you are a schoolteacher using a special, non-personal account for official school business and you've friended all of your students.

You know all those apps that claim to show you the "top 10" stalkers/admirers/whatever? Well, they can't actually determine who's visiting your profile... actually they just pull names and numbers out of a hat.

But most people are too dumb/ignorant to realize this, so they'll think it's actually true when it says you're the "#1 stalker" on some 13-year-old girl's profile. Enjoy explaining yourself to someone who's too dumb to understand the concept of random

If Consumer Reports has such a sophisticated method to accurately determine the age millions of of Facebook users, why don't they share their method with Facebook so they can improve their policy enforcement?

Look at who they list as parents' age and subtract the average age of pregnancy based on their location.

It's not perfect, because a lot of girls (over 13 into their 20s) list their friends as parents for whatever reason, (seen kids of friends do that as well as changing last names, etc) but for the ones that do that, you also get a fair portion of ones who don't list parents.... so drop all of both and you can still say "over x amount" since that would include any results you dropped since you are saying hi

I know I may have sneered at "Think of the Children Arguments" in the past but I loathe Facebook and all it stands for so I am ready to compromise my principles in order to help ferment an unstoppable outpouring of public outrage against it.

Consumer Reports' survey found that their accounts were largely unsupervised by their parents, exposing them to malware or serious threats such as predators or bullies."

Oh my nursing Athena. Is this what Slashdot has some to? Really? This is the quality of stories we get? "Exposing them to" -- gasp-- "malware or" -- gasp -- "serious threats such as predators" -- gasp-- "or bullies."

Give me a break. Where did the submitter grow up, in a test tube? With eighteen parents and doctors watching every move?

Someone please post the submitters' physical address. Please. I'd like to deliver a Darwin award invitation. Before s/he manages to escape parental supervision, stub a toe, and die from an infection of the hangnail.

You're the idiot here. This article is not necessarily posted to show support of the content, but primarily to inform you of its existence and allow a place to discuss it. Even if that discussion is mostly mockery and derision.

Do you also think that when CNN tells you about a suicide bombing that they're tacitly giving support to the suicide bomber's agenda?

The submitter is responsible for their language and what they implicitly endorse as fact by choice of language.
It is one thing for CNN to report on a bombing, it is quite another to frame that report in a way that repeats the bomber's claims and uncritically spreads parts of their ideology as if it were fact. The submitter here does that and the/. moderators accept it by posting.

Seems you haven't been on Slashdot for very long either. These sorts of baiting and trolling summaries are picked by the editors for a reason: to spur discussion (and troll for hits). You took the bait. Congratulations.

While the article did exaggerate a bit, I think they make some valid points. In particular, it doesn't seem like the best idea in the world to let parentally unsupervised children post, talk and say things in a place where there's going to be an archive of it. Children aren't the most responsible people. Hell, some people have grown up and still don't belong on the internet.

I would imagine most 13 year olds are more up to speed with the dangers of malware, etc., than most people over 40. As for other risks - certainly predators might be drawn to such places, but I would imagine that most 13 year olds would give these relatively ancient guys serious abuse - it's the 13 year old depressive loners who are looking for attention who are most vulnerable and those vulnerabilities will be rooted in their life away from Facebook, not due to Facebook. Moreover, abusers are almost always

I only hope and pray that your rabbit friend hasn't been exposed to Malware or bullying. And assuming that she's active on Farmville, I hope her carrot crop is during well this spring.

Seriously though... there's no reason for minors or animals to have social networking accounts. Unequivocally no reason. Not one. Same thing goes for e-mail accounts, though I will at least allow for the possibility that 4th graders may be old enough to submit essays through e-mail to save paper. Saving paper fits into

But, the supervisors have, in the past, been the predators (sexual abuse is more likely from a trusted adult than a random stranger). And, the schoolyard is a known fen for bullies. The entire world isn't some extraordinarily dangerous place.

Recall the US Air Force wanted troll Persona management software?
Licenses for 50 users with 10 personas each? Lets try the math...with 10% of 7.5 million.
Say 50 templates, really simple personas per agent? ~50 US states. Thats down to a few 100's of agents per state to ensure technically, culturally and geographacilly consistent personas.
Update each one for a few mins per week, database each friend request via automated image recognition and ip/isp details...

FTFA: "âoeWhatâ(TM)s even more troubling was the finding from our survey that indicated that a majority of parents of kids 10 and under seemed largely unconcerned by their childrenâ(TM)s use of the site.â

But, we're telling them to be scared. Why aren't they scared? These parents must be the same insane lunatics that use craigslist when you know you will be killed if you do. These kids could be bullied, you know. Unlike real life, there's no way to avoid the person or never hear what the

Here in the Unitied States anyway we have laws that limit the personal information you can collect on children under 13 online. Facebook is all about collecting personal information, so this could be a big problem. I am not sure everyone understands what the law says on this issue either, for a while weather.com was asking if you were under 13 before they let you enter your zip code, which they obviously used to determine what forecast to show (and possibly target ads). They were not even asking for a fir

Facebook doesn't actually want to stop under-13s using their site. They just don't want to be held liable if they do. If a user lies to get access to the site, that puts the liability back on them, rather than on facebook.

This is just plain part of the discovery of what works & what doesn't work socially that people have to go through in order to grow up. And I say "people", not "children", as many adult-aged people still haven't shown any signs of social maturity.:-P

This is just plain part of the discovery of what works & what doesn't work socially that people have to go through in order to grow up. And I say "people", not "children", as many adult-aged people still haven't shown any signs of social maturity.:-P

Yup, there's nothing that can go wrong with children have unlimited access to the internet. After all, they're only using it to download Linux ISOs right?

You think you can limit your child's access to the internet? They'll get around anything you set up, anything your school sets up, or just go over to their friend's house where they've already gotten around it or weren't restricted in the first place.

Kids are vehement explorers, and if there's a place to explore they will do so. The only way to prevent them from doing so is to get their interests legitimately focused on exploring something else. (or dr

Facebook should be fined for this predatory practice. This is a nasty exploitation of children.

Just as a matter of interest how do you think they could enforce it? How would you know that someone claiming to be 22 year old Mike Smith form Luton or 20 year-old Nalini Kapur from Mumbai are really the age they claim to be?

How would you know that someone claiming to be 22 year old Mike Smith form Luton or 20 year-old Nalini Kapur from Mumbai are really the age they claim to be?

Not all but some of them are obvious. I know one that specifically says in the "about me" section that she is an 8 year old girl going to such-and-such elementary school. All of her pictures show an 8 year old running and playing and laughing. Yet there's no way to report it.

Because children are culpable for their actions and know from a very early age about all of the dangers of using the internet, giving away personal information, and can accurately assess the risks involved with using social networking services. They also know, from birth, that roads are dangerous places, they shouldn't pick up used needles, and daddy's shotgun doesn't fire blanks.

children are stupid. The ones under 13 are very, very stupid. I know this because I work in education and have done for almost a decade. If they are unsupervised, they will press every button and click every link which has anything remotely to do with getting what they want, and no EULA will stop them.

This sits squarely on the parents. Not Facebook, not the children, but mom and dad who are fed up of bringing up their child and just want them to hit 18 ASAP. I'm not saying they should shoulder-surf 24/7 and only let them play Happy Fun Playground with Ponies and Sprinkles games, but actually taking the time to become involved in their internet use, or encouraging them in talking about the cool things they've learned or found, would be a start.

it is not facebooks' responsibility to keep it 'safe' for children in the same way it is not the state's responsibility to keep interstate roads safe for kids.. it's the job of the parents to keep kids away from the interstate unless properly restrained in a vehicle..even then there are no guarantees..

children are stupid. The ones under 13 are very, very stupid. I know this because I work in education and have done for almost a decade.

Nice generalisation there.

Facebook, and many other social network sites, ignore children. Wouldn't it be far better to officially allow access to the site for people of any age, but set a much more restrictive default set of privacy settings for those under 13? I think they already do this for anyone age 13-17.

Because if they explicitly cater to them, they'd have to create kid safe content, supervise all interactions, certify everyone's age, and at the same time not be able to exploit them in the same way as users assumed to be adults. Much easier just to let the kids lie and then treat them as adults.

Generalisations, like rumours, often have some small truth to them. I could count on my two hands (and name) the kids who I know had Facebook accounts and knew the risks, yet I know from checking the proxy logs how many tried to access Facebook from the school. It was easily in the top 5 sites students attempted to visit.

Some truth or not, I don't think you should be saying it in a way that sounds like a universal truth. Doing that, I could claim that every single human is an imbecile. It really depends on the individual, and you likely have to assess the individual for you to know if your generalization is true.

And why is this stupid (apart from ignoring the TOS which most people are not even aware of)?
Isn't it better for kids to learn how to use Facebook under parental supervision, then out of it? Same arguments as with parents allowing there kids to drink at home in small quantities, apart from Facebook use has far less negative consequences then alcohol. In the Western world kids probably have an equal chance of using Facebook and drinking alcohol when they grow up, anyway.
Also it seems that the parents in yo

No, kids actually think of it as something that is ordinary and they want it because their parents, siblings and/or friends have it (the later being a general human characteristic not specific to children). I fail to see how having Facebook may cause teenage pregnancy, other then providing an extra channel for communication like, [gasp/] talking, or using a phone. Facebook causes teenage pregnancy in the same way that talking causes teenage pregnancy.

Well I wouldn't agree that they don't know what their doing, but I did one time have some girl who stated she was 12 years old try to add me as a friend. I'm old enough to be her father, so needless to say, it was a bit awkward, not withstanding that I didn't even know how she was. Then she states "But i'm a mature 12 years old!"

Blocked and reported to FB. 10 minutes later her profile is completely gone and her name is no longer searchable.